Well, science and religion...?

Question

On some, if not most, levels it seems that science and religion can co-exist rather peacefully. However in some cases a real arguement gets stirred up, which questions if humans will be able to keep both scientific and religious thinking in their mind. You know, cases such as evolution, the age of the earth, etc etc. Personally as an athiest, I'm perfectly fine with a world that accepts both science and religion, however not with one that rejects the products of research and observation in religious dogma. The question I'm asking here is how do you want the world to be? Science, religion, or both?

In note to an answer on here which says science is a religion I have to say something. The science I talk about is not the products and theories. I am talking of scientific thinking, an interrogation of nature through experimentation and observation. Science is a way of thinking, not a set of beliefs. But yes, there are many theories and ideas that are followed in a religious manner because of the overwhelming evidence for them. However, any true scientist, in pursuit of absolute truth, would question any proven theory; from gravity to the heliocentric theory.

Wow, mad props to everyone! These are probably the best answers I've ever recieved here. All very well thought out (eh, except that first one)! A great joy to see what others think. Thank you!

Answer 1

Jesus christ died for you sins.
That is the good news.Believe he died for
your sins you get eternal life.He loves
you that much all you need to do is believe
you dont need anything else no church or anything
just christ that is all you need faith

Answer 2

If a religion is correct then it has nothing to fear from science.

I only have a problem with religion when it tries to interfere with science. Historically this includes denying that the Earth revolves around the Sun (the Catholic Church finally accepted this in 1992). For the last 150-odd years the 'battlefield' is Evolution (although ona very positive note, the Catholic, and most other major churches accept evolution as a fact - and just as an aside for those who don't already know this. Evolution is a fact. Like gravity. Evolutionary Theory is a theory, like the General Theory of Relativity which explains gravity).

Why is this debate a problem? Because the religious arguments are based on spin and mis-direction. Claiming a scientific 'theory' means that it still needs to be proved. And that 'Intelligent Design' is an equal scientific theory (when it is not even a scientific theory). When they mis-use science to show contradictions that don't exist. Etc, etc, etc, etc. All of these things are done to make people question science. And although questioning science is healthy (and something scientists will encourage) it has to be done by using facts. Not lies.

So, overall I'd say that until these religious minorities can grow up, I'd opt for just science.

Answer 3

i'm all for religious freedom, but also for freedom FROM religion. religion, for a long time, prevented scientific advance. religion is all well and good, but people on the other end get all upset when it pushes over scientific discoveries with nonsense. people on the religious side get all in an uproar when science proves something they hold to be true is absolutely wrong.

religion never changes. the bible, for example, is the same all the time, it is not revised (or hasn't been for over 1500 years).
science changes all the time, it is SUPPOSED to be revised over time as our understanding of the world around us increases.

on this point i would argue that science and religion can NOT co-exist. co-existence implies that one can make room for the other. from a logical reasoning standpoint, this simply is not the case. the illogical nature of common religions' beliefs will never make sense to science; and religious scripture that makes no logical sense can never accept science's proclamation that it probably never happened the way it says.

now "scientists" and "theologists" CAN co-exist. it's just their ideas that can not. that doesn't keep some from trying tho.

anyway to answer your question, i really would like to see science and religion exist together. some people just need religion. but if i had to choose one or the other I'd take logical reasoning over mystical nonsense any day. I think the idea of "oh i don't understand that, god must have done it" of the easy, and lazy, way out. I would rather understand something than chock it up to some being that may or may not even exist.

Answer 4

I'll go for both. There is really no conflict between God and science. The only conflict is between science and a literal interpretation of scripture, not with God. When the literalists start telling us about talking serpents as if they actually existed, they have to attack the science that says they didn't. When they tell us that the Earth is only 6000 years old, they have to attack the science that clearly tells us otherwise. When they tell us that God stopped the Sun in the sky, they have to attack our knowledge of astronomy that tells us that the Sun doesn't go around the Earth and therefore even God could not stop the Sun from doing something that it wasn't doing. If you ask them about this, they will often say that all things are possible with God, which really attacks the very existence of the human quest for knowledge and understanding. If God is going to do things that are simply impossible, then clearly there is no way that mankind can confidently predict anything in the physical world. If we couldn't be reasonably certain of the laws of chemistry, could we ever develop drugs or vaccines? If we couldn't be reasonably certain that God wasn't going to suddenly change the laws of physics, could we fly an aircraft, sail around the world, or even construct a building?

So let's have both science and religion, but not a religion that insists that the Earth is only 6000 years old or that donkeys talk(or that those of us who don't believe these things are atheists).

Answer 5

As it is now, there is too much passion toward religion. I do not believe that the world will ever be the way I would like it to be in regards to a rational balance of science acceptance and religious acceptance. Scientific and religious evalutions are both floored to various degrees. Even the theory of evolution is not proven beyond a theory. There has been plenty of time to prove it to be 100% true. In a way, science is a religion to some. In some situations, a large group of scientists will 'cling' agressively to certain agreed conclusions then some rogue scientist will prove them all wrong.

Answer 6

True science and true religion must agree. They are from the same Source. The problem with each as they are now is the dogma. Don't say that science doesn't have some of the same qualities as corrupt religion. I've seen evidence of scientists going after people for coming up with work that is in opposition to the party line. They don't have a party line? Think again Buckos and Buckettes.

All true religion does is propel people in a spiritual direction, that is, toward justice, peace, freedom from tyranny, harmony, the love of God and so on. What could be wrong with that. Promotion of it will lead to one people, one world.

Answer 7

I see no reason that religion and science can't co-exist. But some religions will never accept things like evolution so they may have to go by the wayside.

Christianity was once adamant that the sun circled the Earth. When proved wrong, they fought it but finally accepted. I doubt that can happen with the reality of evolution.

I have no problem believing that God is responsible for the physical laws of the universe and for it's creation several billion years ago. Religion and science can be harmonious but people have to be willing to learn and understand.

Answer 8

Both. Truth is truth, whether it comes from science or religion. True science and true religion actually support each other. What is false, both for science and religion, is simply human theory. There are a lot of holes and unanswered questions if you take either science or religion away. Most often, they deal with things which the other doesn't and isn't meant to answer. Science cannot find out about the welfare of our souls. Religion can't determine what materials rocks are made of. So in reality, both are necessary to humanity. As one who does believe in God, I believe he wants us to study science as well as religion. After all, this is the world he created. He certainly doesn't want us to be ignorant about it using faith as an excuse.

Answer 9

Science is limited.

Athiest has same limitations as science. Some religions have limitations.

The bible says angels existed to see earth prepared. Bible has no limitations.
Angels inhabit heavens and the very last creature of day age six, is to inhabit the earth, plant life was thousands of years has times and seasons [ that is used now, and is s different time than time for God ], before animal life such as is unknown except for the earth having the remains, then domestic animals that would be of great help to the last creature as all things was done in order, and will continue to be done in order.

Answer 10

The nature of reality and truth is much more vast and eternal than we as limited beings can comprehend. If there is a god he/she belongs to reality and all laws of science and the actual events that have taken place, belong to that same reality. It is important to recognize facts and truths from theory. Theory is not reality. How man was created/evolved is still very much a theory.

Along with many other religion-science clashes, there should be a large (extremely large) amount of tolerance to both sides. Both can and should be a part of our world. Why limit ourselves from understanding the truth of reality?

Answer 11

There has always been a conflict between faith and science. (See Galileo.)

They must exist together, because there will always be people of faith and people of science.

Here's a nice quote from Pope John Paul II:

There exist two realms of knowledge, one which has its source in Revelation and one which reason can discover by its own power. To the latter belong especially the experimental sciences and philosophy. The distinction between the two realms of knowledge ought not to be understood as opposition. The two realms are not altogether foreign to each other, they have points of contact. The methodologies proper to each make it possible to bring out different aspects of reality.